IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.6927 OF 2019 and WRIT PETITION Nos.8288-8290 of 2019 (KVOA) BETWEEN:
1. GIRIYAPPA S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2. VENKATARAMANAIAH S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
3. SRINIVASAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4. MUDLAGIRAIAH S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
5. NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHALUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
6. VENKATESHA.Y., S/O LATE YALAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
7. VENKATARAMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAGIRAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH MAJOR.
PETITIONERS 1 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF KAMBALAPURA HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU – 572 120. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. TAHSILDAR & TALUK MAGISTRATE TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572120 DASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS 2. VENKATACHALAIAH S/O LATE DASAPPA MAJOR.
3. KORAMAMMA D/O LATE DASAPPA MAJOR W/O GANGARANGAIAH 4. GANGAMMA D/O LATE DASAPPA MAJOR W/O REVANNA 5. GIRIYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
6. T.VENKATAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
7. YALAKKAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
8. LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
9. VENKATAKORAMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ MOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 9 ARE R/O KAMBALAPURA HEBBUR, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572120 10. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH MAJOR 11. GIRIYAPPA S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH MAJOR 12. VENKATAIAH S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH MAJOR 13. MUDLAGIRAIAH S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH MAJOR 14. DODDAVENKATAIAH S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 14 ARE R/O KAMBALAPURA HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572120 15. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
16. RANGASWAMAIAH S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
17. KARIYAPPA S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
18. HUCHAPPA S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
19. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE MANDAIAH BIN LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
20. CHIKKANARASAIAH S/O LATE MANDAIAH BIN LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
21. MARIYAPPA NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE MANDAIAH BIN LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
22. NARASIMHA MURTHY @ NARSIMHAIAH S/O LATE MANDAIAH BIN LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.15 TO 22 ARE R/O RAJAPURA, HAMLET OF KAMBALAPURA HEBBUR HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572120. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SUNIL S.RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R5 TO R9, R11 TO R22) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTIRCT & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU IN M.A.NOS.2/13 C/W M.A.NOS.5/13 & 9/13 (COMMON ORDER), DATED 22.11.2018, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The respondents No.1 to 8 in M.A.No.2 of 2013 who are also respondents in other connected appeals in the court below have come up in these writ petitions impugning the common order dated 22.11.2018 in allowing Misc.Appeal Nos.2/2013, 5/2013 and 9/2013 under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KVOA Act’ for short), 1961 and relegating the parties before the Tahsildar, Tumakuru in INA(H) 47/1979-80 with a direction to dispose off the said proceedings afresh by affording an opportunity to both sides to produce the relevant records and to lead evidence, if any and then, to pass order strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the observation made in the said appeal.
2. It is also seen that while disposing of the aforesaid three appeals, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the Tahsildar, Tumakuru who is first respondent in these proceedings to conclude the remanded matter within six months from the date of the receipt of the order impugned. It is the said order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Admittedly, the dispute between the rival parties is with reference to the right to seek re-grant of land under the KVOA Act. All the parties are claiming themselves as lineal descendants of Baravardar Mudalagiri who was said to be a Thoti Inamdar. It is indicated that Thoti Inam right is to cultivate and possess land bearing Sy.Nos.7, 14, 37 and 78 of Kambalapura Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, re-grant of the aforesaid land was subject matter of proceedings before the first respondent Tahsildar, Tumakuru in INA(H)47/1979- 80.
3. It is seen that the father of the petitioners No.1 to 6 herein namely, Yalakkaiah was the person who is said to have filed an application seeking re-grant. There is also said to be rival contender by name, Dasappa, Son of Venkataiah for re-grant as could be seen form Annexure – ‘F’, which is the order passed in the proceedings before the first respondent. Admittedly, this matter was agitated thrice before the same Authority and the final order which was passed by him was subject matter of appeal on three occasions. The latest being the order which is impugned at Annexure-‘K’ which is passed by the District Court in setting aside the order passed by the first respondent and remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar for re-consideration in the light of the material available on record.
4. When the order impugned is looked into, it is seen that the learned District Judge while passing the order impugned has observed that the Tahsildar-first respondent was re-considering the application of the petitioners No.1 to 6, Son of Yalakkaiah where one more person, namely, Dasappa was also contending that he is also a member of the same family of Moodalagiriaiah. It is observed by the District Court that Tahsildar has not appreciated the material available on record, which are produced by the parties; that the same are not properly appreciated before deciding the proceedings and the order impugned is passed, which was subject matter of three appeals before the District Court at Tumakuru. Therefore, while observing that the order is arbitrary and capricious and calls for interference has set aside the same, while doing so, he has not given a categorical finding regarding the claim of Yalakkaiah and Dasappa as contended by them before the Tahsildar. Instead, it has remanded the matter back to Tahsildar and relegated the parties to the original position, to start afresh and produce all the relevant documents to demonstrate their respective rights, which appears to be just and proper to dispose off the matter in the present set of facts.
5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of issuing Rule in this writ petition and keeping it on a back burner, it would be appropriate to dispose off the petition with a direction to the Tahsildar to comply with the order passed by the District Judge and dispose off the matter remanded for re-consideration within six months from the date of receipt of entire records from the said Court.
With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed off.
Parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to possession and title of disputed property, during the pendency of proceedings before Tahsildar.
Sd/- JUDGE dh